Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DECISION
BERSAMIN , J : p
Complainant added that in her thirteen (13) years with the company and
after so many changes in its management and executives, she had never done
anything that will cause them to issue a memorandum against her or her work
attitude, more so, reasons to terminate her services; that she got dismissed
because she was the Union President who was very active in defending and
pursuing the rights of her union members, and in ghting against the abuses of
respondent Corporate O cers; and that she got the ire of respondents when the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
employees led a complaint against the Corporate O cers before Malacañang
and which was later indorsed to the Office of the Ombudsman.
The second complainant Michael L. Alfante alleged that he started to work
with respondents as computer technician at Management Information System
under manager Neri Torrecampo on 16 May 2000; that on 15 July 2001, he was
regularized receiving a monthly salary of P9,070.00 plus other monetary bene ts;
that sometime in 2001, Rico Pagkalinawan replaced Torrecampo, which was
opposed by complainant and three other co-employees; that Pagkalinawan took
offense of their objection; that on 22 October 2002, complainant Alfante received
a memorandum from Pagkalinawan regarding his excessive tardiness; that on 10
June 2003, complainant Alfante received a memorandum from Executive Vice-
President Arnold Banares, requiring him to explain his side on the evaluation of
his performance submitted by manager Pagkalinawan; that one week after
complainant submitted his explanation, he was handed his notice of dismissal on
the ground of "poor performance"; and that complainant was dismissed effective
28 July 2003.
In both instances, respondents maintained that they did not commit any
act of unfair labor practices; that they did not commit acts tantamount to
interfering, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization.
Respondents asserted that the respondents Arturo Dela Cruz, Bobby Capco,
Arnold Banares, Ruby Ruiz-Bruno and Fundador Soriano should not be held liable
on account of complainants' dismissal as they merely acted as agents of
respondent PJI. 1
Upon the foregoing backdrop, Labor Arbiter Corazon C. Borbolla rendered her
decision on March 29, 2006, disposing thusly:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered,
nding complainant Judith Pulido to have been illegally dismissed. As such, she
is entitled to reinstatement and backwages from 07 August 2003 up to her actual
or payroll reinstatement. To date, complainant's backwages is P294,379.54.
SO ORDERED. 2
The rest of the ndings of fact and law in the assailed Resolutions are
hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Both parties moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied their respective motions
for reconsideration on June 2, 2010. 8
JEU and Alfante appealed to the Court (G.R. No. 192478) to challenge the CA's
dispositions regarding the legality of: (a) Alfante's dismissal; (b) the non-compliance with
Minimum Wage Order No. 9; and (c) the non-payment of the rest day. 9
On August 18, 2010, the Court denied due course to the petition in G.R. No. 192478
for failure of petitioners to su ciently show that the CA had committed any reversible
error to warrant the Court's exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction. 1 0
The Court denied with nality JEU and Alfante's ensuing motion for reconsideration
through the resolution of December 8, 2010. 1 1 The entry of judgment in G.R. No. 192478
issued in due course on February 1, 2011. 1 2
On its part, petitioner likewise appealed (G.R. No. 192601), seeking the review of the
CA's disposition in the decision of February 5, 2010 on the granting of the funeral and
bereavement aid stipulated in the CBA.
In its petition for review, petitioner maintained that under Section 4, Article XIII of the
CBA, funeral and bereavement aid should be granted upon the death of a legal dependent
of a regular employee; that consistent with the de nition provided by the Social Security
System (SSS), the term legal dependent referred to the spouse and children of a married
regular employee, and to the parents and siblings, 18 years old and below, of a single
regular employee; 1 3 that the CBA considered the term dependents to have the same
meaning as beneficiaries, as provided in Section 5, Article XIII of the CBA on the payment
of death bene ts; 1 4 that its earlier granting of claims for funeral and bereavement aid
without regard to the foregoing de nition of the legal dependents of married or single
regular employees did not ripen into a company policy whose unilateral withdrawal would
constitute a violation of Article 100 of the Labor Code, 1 5 the law disallowing the non-
diminution of bene ts; 1 6 that it had approved only four claims from 1999 to 2003 based
on its mistaken interpretation of the term legal dependents, but later corrected the same in
2000; 1 7 that the grant of funeral and bereavement aid for the death of an employee's legal
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
dependent, regardless of the employee's civil status, did not occur over a long period of
time, was not consistent and deliberate, and was partly due to its mistake in appreciating a
doubtful question of law; and that its denial of subsequent claims did not amount to a
violation of the law against the non-diminution of benefits. 1 8
In their comment, 1 9 JEU and Alfante countered that the CBA was a bilateral
contractual agreement that could not be unilaterally changed by any party during its
lifetime; and that the grant of burial bene ts had already become a company practice
favorable to the employees, and could not anymore be reduced, diminished, discontinued
or eliminated by petitioner.
Issue
In view of the entry of judgment issued in G.R. No. 192478, JEU and Alfante's
submissions on the illegality of his dismissal, the non-payment of his rest days, and the
violation of Minimum Wage Order No. 9 shall no longer be considered and passed upon.
The sole remaining issue is whether or not petitioner's denial of respondents' claims
for funeral and bereavement aid granted under Section 4, Article XIII of their CBA
constituted a diminution of benefits in violation of Article 100 of the Labor Code.
Ruling
The petition for review lacks merit.
The nature and force of a CBA are delineated in Honda Phils., Inc. v. Samahan ng
Malayang Manggagawa sa Honda, 2 0 thuswise:
A collective bargaining agreement (or CBA) refers to the negotiated
contract between a legitimate labor organization and the employer concerning
wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment in a
bargaining unit. As in all contracts, the parties in a CBA may establish such
stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient
provided these are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or
public policy. Thus, where the CBA is clear and unambiguous, it becomes the law
between the parties and compliance therewith is mandated by the express policy
of the law.
Accordingly, the stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions of the CBA, being the
law between the parties, must be complied with by them. 2 1 The literal meaning of the
stipulations of the CBA, as with every other contract, control if they are clear and leave no
doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties. 2 2
Here, a conflict has arisen regarding the interpretation of the term legal dependent in
connection with the grant of funeral and bereavement aid to a regular employee under
Section 4, Article XIII of the CBA, 2 3 which stipulates as follows:
SECTION 4.Funeral/Bereavement Aid. — The COMPANY agrees to grant a
funeral/bereavement aid in the following instances:
a. Death of a regular employee in line of duty — P50,000
Considering that existing laws always form part of any contract, and are deemed
incorporated in each and every contract, 2 8 the de nition of legal dependents under the
aforecited social legislations applies herein in the absence of a contrary or different
de nition mutually intended and adopted by the parties in the CBA. Accordingly, the
concurrence of a legitimate spouse does not disqualify a child or a parent of the employee
from being a legal dependent provided substantial evidence is adduced to prove the actual
dependency of the child or parent on the support of the employee.
In this regard, the differentiation among the legal dependents is signi cant only in
the event the CBA has prescribed a hierarchy among them for the granting of a bene t;
hence, the use of the terms primary bene ciaries and secondary bene ciaries for that
purpose. But considering that Section 4, Article XIII of the CBA has not included that
differentiation, petitioner had no basis to deny the claim for funeral and bereavement aid of
Alfante for the death of his parent whose death and fact of legal dependency on him could
be substantially proved.
Pursuant to Article 100 of the Labor Code, petitioner as the employer could not
reduce, diminish, discontinue or eliminate any bene t and supplement being enjoyed by or
granted to its employees. This prohibition against the diminution of bene ts is founded on
the constitutional mandate to protect the rights of workers and to promote their welfare
and to afford labor full protection. 2 9 The application of the prohibition against the
diminution of bene ts presupposes that a company practice, policy or tradition favorable
to the employees has been clearly established; and that the payments made by the
employer pursuant to the practice, policy, or tradition have ripened into bene ts enjoyed by
them. 3 0 To be considered as a practice, policy or tradition, however, the giving of the
bene ts should have been done over a long period of time, and must be shown to have
been consistent and deliberate. 3 1 It is relevant to mention that we have not yet settled on
the speci c minimum number of years as the length of time su cient to ripen the practice,
policy or tradition into a benefit that the employer cannot unilaterally withdraw. 3 2
The argument of petitioner that the grant of the funeral and bereavement bene t
was not voluntary but resulted from its mistaken interpretation as to who was considered
a legal dependent of a regular employee deserves scant consideration. To be sure, no
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
doubtful or di cult question of law was involved inasmuch as the several cogent statutes
existing at the time the CBA was entered into already de ned who were quali ed as the
legal dependents of another. Moreover, the voluntariness of the grant of the bene t
became even manifest from petitioner's admission that, despite the memorandum it
issued in 2000 3 3 in order to "correct" the interpretation of the term legal dependent, it still
approved in 2003 the claims for funeral and bereavement aid of two employees, namely:
(a) Cecille Bulacan, for the death of her father; and (b) Charito Cartel, for the death of her
mother, based on its supposedly mistaken interpretation. 3 4
It is further worthy to note that petitioner granted claims for funeral and
bereavement aid as early as 1999, then issued a memorandum in 2000 to correct its
erroneous interpretation of legal dependent under Section 4, Article XIII of the CBA. This
notwithstanding, the 2001-2004 CBA 3 5 still contained the same provision granting funeral
or bereavement aid in case of the death of a legal dependent of a regular employee
without differentiating the legal dependents according to the employee's civil status as
married or single. The continuity in the grant of the funeral and bereavement aid to regular
employees for the death of their legal dependents has undoubtedly ripened into a
company policy. With that, the denial of Alfante's quali ed claim for such bene t pursuant
to Section 4, Article XIII of the CBA violated the law prohibiting the diminution of benefits.
WHEREFORE , the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on February 5, 2010;
and ORDERS petitioner to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED .
Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Villarama, Jr. and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
6.Id. at 321-322.
7.Id. at 54-65; penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante, with the concurrence of
Associate Justice Mario L. Guariña III (retired) and Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon.
8.Id. at 66-68.
9.Rollo, (G.R. No. 192478), p. 13.
10.Id. at 390.
11.Id. at 405.
12.Id. at 406.
13.Rollo, p. 41.
14.Id. at 41-42.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
15.Article 100. Prohibition against elimination or diminution of benefits. — Nothing in this Book
shall be construed to eliminate or in any way diminish supplements, or other employee
benefits being enjoyed at the time of promulgation of this Code.
16.Rollo, p. 43.
17.Id. at 43-44.
18.Id. at 45.
19.Id. at 473-490.
20.G.R. No. 145561, June 15, 2005, 460 SCRA 186, 190-191.
21.TSPIC Corporation v. TSPIC Employees Union (FFW), G.R. No. 163419, February 13, 2008,
545 SCRA 215, citing Centro Escolar University Faculty and Allied Workers Union-
Independent v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165486, May 31, 2006, 490 SCRA 61, 72.
22.Article 1370, Civil Code.
23.Rollo, p. 134.
24.An Act Further Strengthening the Social Security System Thereby Amending for this Purpose
Republic Act No. 1161, As Amended, Otherwise Known as the Social Security Law.
25.An Act Instituting a National Health Insurance Program for All Filipinos and Establishing the
Philippine Health Insurance Corporation for the Purpose.
26.An Act Amending Presidential Decree No. 1146, as amended, Expanding and Increasing the
Coverage and Benefits of the Government Service Insurance System, Instituting Reforms
Therein and for Other Purposes.
27.G.R. No. 164790, August 29, 2008, 563 SCRA 693, 703-704.
28.Sulo sa Nayon, Inc. v. Nayong Pilipino Foundation, G.R. No. 170923, January 20, 2009, 576
SCRA 655, 666.
29.Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. v. Eastern Telecoms Employees Union, G.R.
No. 185665, February 8, 2012, 665 SCRA 516, 533.
30.Boncodin v. National Power Corporation Employees Consolidated Union (NECU), G.R. No.
162716, September 27, 2006, 503 SCRA 611, 628.
31.Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
152928, June 18, 2009, 589 SCRA 376, 384.
32.Sevilla Trading Company v. Semana, G.R. No. 152456, April 28, 2004, 428 SCRA 239, 249.
33.Rollo, p. 41.
34.Id. at 40.
35.Id. at 121-140.